Nuclear plants are toxic assets with no warning labels

There is a story about the Fukushima nuclear disaster that is not being told … until now. We know that almost 16,000 people were killed by the devastating tsunami and have heard the painful stories of hundreds of thousands of people who lost their homes and their livelihoods after the release of radiation from the stricken nuclear power plant. We haven’t heard much, however, about the hundreds of thousands who also lost a large portion of their savings.

To tell this story, we have just released the report, Toxic Assets: nuclear assets in the 21st century. In it we expose the scale of financial losses and the failure of financial advisors to make it clear to investors that nuclear plants are risky investments.

Individual shareholders hold more than half of the shares of TEPCO, the owner of the Fukushima plant. The number of individual shareholders has dropped significantly since the disaster; we see that probably hundreds of thousands were forced to cash in their shares at a huge loss because TEPCO’s share price collapsed after the disaster.

The impact on shareholders, however, has gone beyond TEPCO investors both in Japan and many other countries. Individual investors in other Japanese electricity utilities have also seen their investments melt. In addition, investors in Japanese mutual life insurance companies, among the largest shareholders and creditors of utilities with nuclear plants, lost money. People still holding on to these nuclear assets may lose even more; the industry ministry has said nuclear utility losses could nearly double from 1.5 trillion yen to 2.7 trillion this year.

The Japanese people will likely bear the brunt of most of these losses either as taxpayers, or as individual shareholders or as life insurance members.

In fact, final loss figures for the Fukushima disaster will likely be much higher than the total of US$71billion for the insured losses of in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

These investors who lost so much money received very little useful advice from their investment advisors over the risks of investing in TEPCO and other utilities that own nuclear power plants or in technology companies selling nuclear equipment.

Instead, these investors heard nothing but high ratings and bullish recommendations about TEPCO from supposedly savvy financial advisors and ratings agencies. Instead of fulfilling their responsibilities, advisors ignored or hid from investors the warnings about the tsunami risks endangering the Fukushima reactors, the many alarm signals about the inherent risks of the GE Mark I design and the list of scandals, cover-ups and collusions about how TEPCO was maintaining its nuclear reactors for decades.

Investors also trusted the nuclear industry, especially its arguments about the low probabilities of meltdowns and other nuclear accidents. But even these assumptions are being increasingly questioned by both energy risk experts and the US Government Accountability Office.

More than 780 nuclear incidents and accidents have been reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s monitoring system since 1990 and as plants age, that number will increase, heightening investment risk. Financial advisors should be telling their clients about these risks.

So before you invest in a humble-looking regional utility or a cool equipment manufacturer, check out if there is a nuclear plant or a nuclear vendor in the mix. And if you`re already stuck with their toxic shares, exercise your shareholder rights and push your company in the right direction – to divesting out of nukes and into renewable energy. The historic crossover between the costs of nuclear plants and solar PV has already happened.

In Japan, shareholders and creditors will have ample occasions to make such a push with the upcoming annual shareholder meetings towards the end of this month. Now is your chance!

Gyorgy Dallos is a Senior Energy Investments Advisor for Greenpeace International

Rising costs of nuclear are due to succesful anti-nuclear propaganda + political interests only. In reality, nuclear technology has only become cheape...

Rising costs of nuclear are due to succesful anti-nuclear propaganda + political interests only. In reality, nuclear technology has only become cheaper, safer, and more advanced, as evidenced in countries without strong anti-nuclear lobby groups and politicised nuclear regulators, such as China and South Korea.

Any senior investments advisor should know this.

Besides, 'divesting from nuclear' will only create more demand for fossil fuels, which can already be clearly seen in Germany and Japan.

Joris, you seem relatively well informed but what you say, "cheaper, safer, and more advanced..." is inconsistent with other informed views....

Joris, you seem relatively well informed but what you say, "cheaper, safer, and more advanced..." is inconsistent with other informed views.

Nuclear as a source of energy, from mining to supply uranium, through construction of "fail safe" plants, to disposal of spent fuel and any other contaminated components involved, is generally known by other informed sources to be extremely problematic.

Further, since the plants cannot be insured by conventional means against clean-up costs if a disaster occurs, taxpayers are "on the hook" for these costs as well, (should needs arise).

Taxpayers are in many cases already footing extra nuclear costs through government nuclear incentive policies. The money might be better spent on solar/wind/geothermal developments.

If nuclear use developments are advanced so that these concerns are no longer valid - it would be good to know. Do you have a source for this information?

Until I learn differently, I'm afraid nuclear energy is - for me - yet another complication in the unraveling of industrial/post industrial high consumption cultures. For me, priority is earth/life care.

Comparing nuclear, coal and gas to solar and wind is not as useful an exercise as it is made out ...

Maggie789,

Some comments:

Comparing nuclear, coal and gas to solar and wind is not as useful an exercise as it is made out to be. Basically, solar and wind energy are 'fuel saving' technologies, while nuclear, coal and gas (and geothermal and biomass) are 'energy supply' technologies. In other words, solar and wind installations are useful only as a way to *reduce* the fuel consumption of 'energy supply' installations. Beyond about 30% to 50%, solar and wind cannot feasibly substitute for energy supply installations, owing to mounting difficulties of storing and regulating the flow of intermittent power from sch sources. So the remaining 50% to 70% of energy demand this century has to come either from geothermal, biomass, coal, gas or nuclear.

From an ecological, technical and economic standpoint, of these sources only geothermal, biomass and nuclear are potentially ultimate candidates. Because geothermal and biomass are seriously limited by requiring proximity to a source of geothermal heat and sustainably produced biomass respectively they are not believed to be able to provide more than 10% or 30% of total energy consumption this century. Therefore, a sustainable economy in the 21st century should expect to obtain at least 50% of its energy from nuclear power, or find itself forced to use coal and gas!

Concerning nuclear power plant safety. It is possible to build nuclear reactors that provide so-called 'absolute containment'. 'absolute' means that there are *no* operational event chains that can conceivable cause containment breach. Such reactors are also called 'inherently safe', or 'passively safe'. This is a crucial concept. This is the type of reactor that is used in submarines, for example. Such reactors are relatively larger (and therefore more expensive) than traditional reactors. However, it is still possible to employ such reactors for competitive energy production. In fact, there are many reactor concepts and designs already developed that could basically be applied tomorrow. Research and development of such reactors has been broadly concluded decades ago, although research is ongoing to further optimise them of course.

Only because such reactors are more expensive than traditional reactors, and because traditional reactors have (rightly!) been deemed 'safe enough' in the past, do we not see such reactors employed today outside the confines of research or submarine applications. Also, because the nuclear power plant design licensing procedure is extremely arduous, time-consuming and costly, have such 'inherently safe' reactors not been commercialised as quickly as one might expect.

Disclaimer: I am not a nuclear technology expert. I am a mechanical engineer (MSc). I have learned all I know about nuclear power by reading such relieable and vetted information sources as:
http://www.janleenkloosterman.nl/nps9_20091027.php

It is my belief that we as a species should tell the Politicians to END this Nuclear madness, Our planet and Our peoples need us to stand up to the co...

It is my belief that we as a species should tell the Politicians to END this Nuclear madness, Our planet and Our peoples need us to stand up to the corporate thieves and say NO. Nevermind about the fact that the mainstream media circus doesn't want to rock the boat, if enough people stand up and shout loud enough then they've got to hear..PEOPLE BEFORE PROFIT...We and our children & their children have a human right to life.How many generations are going to pay for this toxic lifestyle.... The Nuclear scandal is a Crime against humanity and all the courts across the world should be full of people filing suits against these morons

Thank you for a thorough reply to most of my thoughts - I truly appreciate it! So now I'm wondering ...

IF the problem with solar and wind is storage (storage technology not yet available to allow meeting fluctuating demands across time, and also obviously unavailable in hours of no wind, no sun), and IF and geothermal is problematic as it's only practical close to good sources, and IF there is a "fail safe" nuclear plant design that is affordable even if expensive, then I take it you propose nuclear as the "constant supply source" - to be used in conjunction with non-nuclear sources such as wind and solar?

Believe me, I'd like nothing more than to be persuaded that nuclear is "doable", that all the reservations and objections are answerable. We already know it works; we know a lot about it; we have plant designs as you describe that should be safe - and, I think I'm realizing it can be used to provide "significant horsepower", which we're going to desperately miss without gasoline and diesel!

(If it can power a submarine, ... does that confirm nuclear can power other "heavy lifting" machines? I live where wildfires are not uncommon; every summer I think of our reliance on bulldozer and air assistance to fight them. This is only one of thousands of ways we don't realize our dependency on fossil-fuel.)

We humans have brought ourselves to what sure seems "a right mess." I am have no training that lets me sort out possibilities - am an English major, so tend to go for imaginative solutions! For instance - I'm not giving up on Tesla technology yet although I'm also not trying to follow what people are doing to explore it. So far, Tesla success seems elusive. I'm also fond of small-scale solar and wind in both rural and urban locations to meet as much demand as possible, without built-in dependency on a distant source. I realize storage remains an issue but it's appealing to think if my system is down, one nearby is likely functioning. (I've homesteaded and was a "back to the land" participant so am familiar with householder sized systems, although I've not used one.)

I've even wondered if anyone is considering updating "Dutch" windmills with a bit of newer technology - have wondered if those giant blades turn more slowly for energy output compared to current high-tech blades which, I'm learning, do kill both birds and bats as well as require uncommon elements for their technology. We're already losing creatures at an alarming rate; and uncommon earth elements/minerals cannot be thought readily available.

All these remarks made - three questions specific to nuclear remain for me: 1-hazards of mining the necessary elements?; 2-power needed to do the mining/transporting? (the "big horsepower" question); and 3- does the problem of disposal of 'spent' nuclear plant material remain, even with the inherently safe design?

A final comment re time-consuming expensive licensing reviews, etc. - this is, IMO, as it needs to be. We've possibly done more "rushing projects through" on most human endeavors (not only nuclear) than has been wise. IF we can finally, with rigorous and lengthy examination, convince ourselves of a go-ahead, it should become more routine and speedier over time. (Or so it seems to me.)

As I have lobbied IAEA about several times, conventional nuclear power is inherently dangerous and generates huge amounts of dangerous nuclear waste. ...

As I have lobbied IAEA about several times, conventional nuclear power is inherently dangerous and generates huge amounts of dangerous nuclear waste. PRISM-type reactors are even worse on safety grounds. There are very good arguments for a cessation of all contemporary nuclear reactors as soon as possible, before any more meltdowns and more dangerous nuclear waste is generated.

If we are to use nuclear power, it must be via the Thorium LFTR route, becuase this technology is only intrinsically much safer, and also can be confirmed to burn up and render safe all the legacy of dangerous nuclear waste from conventional nuclear reactors. Burying dangrous nuclear waste for more than 100000 years in gioelogical formations is not a good idea; it is more prudent to burn it in Thorium LFTRs whose waste products only need to be stored for 300 years before normal handling can be resumed.

Conventional nuclear power based upon Zirconia-clad fuel rods has been an utter disaster when the sheer volume of accummulated nuclear waste is taken into consideration. The sooner we end this folly of conventional nuclear power (and its later dreadful PRISM developments), the better for mankind.